Out-of-control O’Reilly gets aggressive with Obama staffer

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ahh....Just as I thought, no coherent arguments....

Mike jackson?

Well, the fact is that Mr. Oreilly is listened to by the largest of any audience, and obviousley one that agrees with him, voluntarily, as evidenced by the fact that they tune into both his news show as well as listening to his radio show. FACTOID- THE MOST WATCHED NEWS COMMENTARY FIVE YEARS IN A ROW!!!

He's not a gloved freak rubbing his crotch on stage (a very scary visual BTW).....

If you don't know the difference then I'm clearly wasting my time, sigh......wait, wait, this is VJ! I am wasting my time!!!

Obama, and HillBilly? I feel sooooo sorry for you guys (again)....... Jeeze, most of you acted and behaved soooo badly after GW's last reelection that I had to lay off for a while....Really scary here after that!

You are wasting your time. I still don't get why i) you're defending O'Reilly ii) you're defending him on the basis that he's popular and that this is somehow synonymous with "quality". I can rattle off half a hundred examples to the effect that this isn't the case. I dunno ... but that makes your argument seem pretty incoherent. IMHO of course.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Michael Jackson is popular too...how dare anyone bash his good name.

So are Britney Spears and Tom Cruise (I think, he's the highest grossing Hollywood actor). I guess fans of theirs can stick their tongues out when someone has a dig, because its only popularity that matters.

Incidentally, I think that's why we have so many 'fake' celebrities through those innumerable reality TV shows.

Oh, but we're making crucial mistake here, Number 6. O'Reilly's a popular news journalist...

Not really even that - he's a commentator. The TV equivalent of a newspaper opinion page. Though as far as the presentation of TV journalism goes the gap between traditional reporting and opinion seems to get slimmer all the time.

He's a celebrity whether some want to admit to that or not. No different from Tom Cruise or Sean Penn, except perhaps his politics and that he likes talking dirty on the phone with his subordinates.

But wait for it... Cause you know that if it were a Liberal commentator we'd both be singing a different tune. if only that were true.

Exactly.

[kaydee457 13]

I still don't get why i) you're defending O'Reilly ii) you're defending him on the basis that he's popular and that this is somehow synonymous with "quality". I can rattle off half a hundred examples to the effect that this isn't the case. I dunno ... but that makes your argument seem pretty incoherent. IMHO of course.

Yes, you just don't get it.......

[Converse34 1]

Well for my part, I won't be watching it because I don't have cable

But regardless, I couldn't really care less about O'Reilly - he's a $hithead whether the story is true or not (of course if such a term as "truth" can be applied to a glorified talk show) - and for that matter, he's also a bad journalist.

Ultimately of course, its pretty unimportant at the end of the day.

How can you make comments about O'Reilly if you don't have cable and don't watch him? I suppose you just get all your info 2nd hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for my part, I won't be watching it because I don't have cable

But regardless, I couldn't really care less about O'Reilly - he's a $hithead whether the story is true or not (of course if such a term as "truth" can be applied to a glorified talk show) - and for that matter, he's also a bad journalist.

Ultimately of course, its pretty unimportant at the end of the day.

How can you make comments about O'Reilly if you don't have cable and don't watch him? I suppose you just get all your info 2nd hand.

Well for one thing its not like we've never had cable. Once upon a time (up until about a year ago) we did have it did have it, and I'd often flick on O'Reilly, or Lou Dobbs or one of those other idiots for simple entertainment value (the adult version of watching cartoons). So I have watched his show, enough times to get his style but I certainly don't rely on it as some sort of gospel of journalist truth. That people do, and take it seriously enough to defend the guy (for example, on the basis that he's 'popular' and what's popular must therefore be good) says a lot about them, IMHO.

I still don't get why i) you're defending O'Reilly ii) you're defending him on the basis that he's popular and that this is somehow synonymous with "quality". I can rattle off half a hundred examples to the effect that this isn't the case. I dunno ... but that makes your argument seem pretty incoherent. IMHO of course.

Yes, you just don't get it.......

Well perhaps you can explain it, rather than fall back on "but he's popular". Because I think I've stated pretty clearly why I think that's a bogus argument as it pertains to quality.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

The new tee shirt will be, "Don't Shove Me Bro!" Hehehehehe...

[kaydee457 13]

The new tee shirt will be, "Don't Shove Me Bro!" Hehehehehe...

I'd buy one.....

[kaydee457 13]

Well for my part, I won't be watching it because I don't have cable

But regardless, I couldn't really care less about O'Reilly - he's a $hithead whether the story is true or not (of course if such a term as "truth" can be applied to a glorified talk show) - and for that matter, he's also a bad journalist.

Ultimately of course, its pretty unimportant at the end of the day.

How can you make comments about O'Reilly if you don't have cable and don't watch him? I suppose you just get all your info 2nd hand.

Well for one thing its not like we've never had cable. Once upon a time (up until about a year ago) we did have it did have it, and I'd often flick on O'Reilly, or Lou Dobbs or one of those other idiots for simple entertainment value (the adult version of watching cartoons). So I have watched his show, enough times to get his style but I certainly don't rely on it as some sort of gospel of journalist truth. That people do, and take it seriously enough to defend the guy (for example, on the basis that he's 'popular' and what's popular must therefore be good) says a lot about them, IMHO.

I still don't get why i) you're defending O'Reilly ii) you're defending him on the basis that he's popular and that this is somehow synonymous with "quality". I can rattle off half a hundred examples to the effect that this isn't the case. I dunno ... but that makes your argument seem pretty incoherent. IMHO of course.

Yes, you just don't get it.......

Well perhaps you can explain it, rather than fall back on "but he's popular". Because I think I've stated pretty clearly why I think that's a bogus argument as it pertains to quality.

Let's sum it up...

I, and the majority of americans watch, and support his programs (via his sponsors and ratings) and you and the minority do not regularly watch him.....

Buuuut of course, the fact that you have little or no practical experience in observing his tv show, nor having listened to his radio commentary on a regular basis, you feel obligized to offer up your uninformed opinion regarding someone, and something you admit you know little about........

thanks- I'll give your opinion the weight it deserves!

[simple_male 1]

It’s clear watching his show that Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly thinks he’s above such things as social norms, but I didn’t realize he’d go this far.

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly got into a confrontation with an Obama aide after O’Reilly started screaming at him as he tried to get Barack Obama’s attention following a rally here. O’Reilly eventually did chat briefly with Obama and asked him to be a guest on his show.

The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson “Move” so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. “O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face,” a photographer shooting the scene said.

O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6′8, said O’Reilly called him “low class.”

“He grabbed me with both his hands here,” Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O’Reilly “started shoving me.” Nicholson said, ” He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me.”

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O ‘Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O’Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Once the Secret Service has to intervene to ask a media personality to settle down, you know O’Reilly must have been pushing the envelope to the breaking point.

I don’t doubt that O’Reilly will characterize him grabbing a senator’s aide as some kind of media heroics, but “journalists” aren’t supposed to be thugs. We’ve come a long way — in 1968, it was Dan Rather getting shoved by political heavies. In 2008, it’s Bill O’Reilly doing the shoving.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

This is very typical of Bil O'Reilly. He is not liking the fact that Obama is energizing the young voters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for my part, I won't be watching it because I don't have cable

But regardless, I couldn't really care less about O'Reilly - he's a $hithead whether the story is true or not (of course if such a term as "truth" can be applied to a glorified talk show) - and for that matter, he's also a bad journalist.

Ultimately of course, its pretty unimportant at the end of the day.

How can you make comments about O'Reilly if you don't have cable and don't watch him? I suppose you just get all your info 2nd hand.

Well for one thing its not like we've never had cable. Once upon a time (up until about a year ago) we did have it did have it, and I'd often flick on O'Reilly, or Lou Dobbs or one of those other idiots for simple entertainment value (the adult version of watching cartoons). So I have watched his show, enough times to get his style but I certainly don't rely on it as some sort of gospel of journalist truth. That people do, and take it seriously enough to defend the guy (for example, on the basis that he's 'popular' and what's popular must therefore be good) says a lot about them, IMHO.

I still don't get why i) you're defending O'Reilly ii) you're defending him on the basis that he's popular and that this is somehow synonymous with "quality". I can rattle off half a hundred examples to the effect that this isn't the case. I dunno ... but that makes your argument seem pretty incoherent. IMHO of course.

Yes, you just don't get it.......

Well perhaps you can explain it, rather than fall back on "but he's popular". Because I think I've stated pretty clearly why I think that's a bogus argument as it pertains to quality.

Let's sum it up...

I, and the majority of americans watch, and support his programs (via his sponsors and ratings) and you and the minority do not regularly watch him.....

Buuuut of course, the fact that you have little or no practical experience in observing his tv show, nor having listened to his radio commentary on a regular basis, you feel obligized to offer up your uninformed opinion regarding someone, and something you admit you know little about........

thanks- I'll give your opinion the weight it deserves!

None of which answers the question I asked - specifically why you associate popularity with quality. As you refuse to answer that question, or rather seem incapable of answering it - I'll give your opinion the weight it deserves!

You must also have missed the post where I said I used to watch Bill quite a bit. I still catch him online from time to time. Yes, they publish it online these days too

Perhaps you start a poll - and find out how much I am in the minority in my opinion about Bill You might be surprised. As far as the "majority of Americans" goes you're essentially saying that Bill O'Reilly's ratings figures rank in the hundreds of millions.... Surely not... Saying that of course - it would be rather easy to find out.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Number 6

[eau_xplain 2]

My husband is a republican and he used to watch O'Reilly a lot. But he agrees with me that O'Reilly can go overboard at times. And even if my husband is a republican, he does not always agree with Bill nor does he think that Bill is the end all and be all for all conservative opinions.

N.B. Hubby still watches O'Reilly now and then.

[Ban Hammer 14,661]

My husband is a republican and he used to watch O'Reilly a lot. But he agrees with me that O'Reilly can go overboard at times. And even if my husband is a republican, he does not always agree with Bill nor does he think that Bill is the end all and be all for all conservative opinions.

N.B. Hubby still watches O'Reilly now and then.

yay get him on vj will ya!

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

My husband is a republican and he used to watch O'Reilly a lot. But he agrees with me that O'Reilly can go overboard at times. And even if my husband is a republican, he does not always agree with Bill nor does he think that Bill is the end all and be all for all conservative opinions.

N.B. Hubby still watches O'Reilly now and then.

yay get him on vj will ya!

Yes, please do! I get tired of defending myself, by myself from attacks of 3 or 4 libs all at the same time. Sometimes on multiple subjects simultaneously. Then as soon as you defeat them on a subject, they change the subject to some other emotionally charged illogical argument. I grow weary of their vacuous and specious arguments. I too don't always agree with O'Reilly all the time. But he is still more pragmatic than anything I have seen come out of the left.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Don_Joy's Prince

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, please do! I get tired of defending myself, by myself from attacks of 3 or 4 libs all at the same time. Sometimes on multiple subjects simultaneously. Then as soon as you defeat them on a subject, they change the subject to some other emotionally charged illogical argument. I grow weary of their vacuous and specious arguments. I too don't always agree with O'Reilly all the time. But he is still more pragmatic than anything I have seen come out of the left.

You think way highly of yourself my man, especially with the apparent assertion that you don't subscribe to emotionally charged and illogical arguments. I thought that had been well and truly debunked to the point that I'm surprised you have the cheek to keep on trotting it out.

BTW - I still wonder why Kaydee can't rationalise the whole popularity/quality argument. Whenever he attempts it his only recourse is to get personal. Same here with your "Oh... I'm sooo tired of these vacuous and specious arguments". No examples will be forthcoming I assume...

P.S. I still don't get why you lot insist on defending O'Reilly to the point that anyone would think that you somehow made the program. More than that why do people continue to take ownership of people like Bill O'Reilly? Admittedly O'Reilly isn't half as crazed as someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter but he's still a pretty ridiculous figure at the best of times. Hardly the 'standard' of journalistic integrity. I happen to think that the majority of corporate media is simply poor quality and bad value for money - yet you people continue to ascribe political labels to it, as though the major media outlets are verbatim mouthpieces of one or other political parties.

Anyone who buys the whole "Liberal Media" tosh at face value, clearly doesn't know too much about the media. Political bias is a problem, but its far from the only one.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My husband is a republican and he used to watch O'Reilly a lot. But he agrees with me that O'Reilly can go overboard at times. And even if my husband is a republican, he does not always agree with Bill nor does he think that Bill is the end all and be all for all conservative opinions.

N.B. Hubby still watches O'Reilly now and then.

Sounds a lot like my father in law - a moderate republican. He doesn't go batshit whenever someone criticises O'Reilly. Then again he also doesn't go into for the b/s soundbite culture that springs up whenever there's an election. I think the foam-hand wearing "he's a flip-flopper" / "you're unamerican and/or full of hate" crowd are a lot smaller than they think, if a lot louder.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Number 6